UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
Anyway. Can we NOW categorise Rogue River as a UFO that supports my contention that UFOs exist and so move on?
Click to expand...


How about we all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations have been shown to be possible, perhaps even likely. What do you say, everyone?
 
GeeMack said:
How about we all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations have been shown to be possible, perhaps even likely. What do you say, everyone?
Click to expand...

Hello GeeMack ;)

Show me a "clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanation..." For Rogue River then.

Evidence to support your contention is needed GeeMack - merely stating there is such, does NOT make it so. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Hello GeeMack ;)

Show me a "clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanation..." For Rogue River then.

Evidence to support your contention is needed GeeMack - merely stating there is such, does NOT make it so. :eek:
Click to expand...
have your eyes been closed the whole way through this
:p
 
Rramjet said:
Hello GeeMack ;)

Show me a "clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanation..." For Rogue River then.

Evidence to support your contention is needed GeeMack - merely stating there is such, does NOT make it so. :eek:
Click to expand...

See Jers post on the robot egg ;)
 
Rramjet said:
But don't you see...if you contend the witness testimony to be totally unreliable, then you cannot then turn around and use it to point out inconsistencies.
Click to expand...


Haven't read the ensuing responses to this yet, but I'm nominating this one for a Stundie! I knew something useful could come from this thread!

That's gold Jerry! Gold!

Hey, genius: it's the inconsistencies that make it unreliable.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Umm... I think you will find the phrase "all blimp operations on the West Coast ended" might give away the answer...

Clue: "West Coast"...
Click to expand...

Read your own link, Rramjet, where it specifically states that it is talking about blimps at a specific station.

Rramjet said:
This is it - I finally have thePROOF that there were NO Blimps at Rogue River in 1949.

"Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended."

("http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)

Now. THAT I contend stops the "blimp" hypothesis DEAD.
Click to expand...

There were no other blimps than what the Navy had at that one post?

Btw, Rramjet... when are you going to address GeeMack's question in post #345? Why do you continue to ignore this simple yes/no question?

Please look at his points in post #345 and answer the question. Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
How about we all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations have been shown to be possible, perhaps even likely. What do you say, everyone?
Click to expand...

Agreed. time to move on....hopefully to something with some meat.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
How about we all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations have been shown to be possible, perhaps even likely. What do you say, everyone?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Rramjet fails.
 
Seems like we're reaching a consensus here.

Let's all agree to just let Rramjet stew in his own froth from now on.

C'mon, let's all go get a beer...

*Doesn't invite Rramjet*
 
Come on!, Rramjet is also invited, he's been defending his points of view courageously as a lone voice, in the midst of a herd of disbelievers. I want to believe that he's been honest.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
Come on!, Rramjet is also invited, he's been defending his points of view courageously as a lone voice, in the midst of a herd of disbelievers. I want to believe that he's been honest.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Throughout this thread, and the thread regarding 'aliens', Rramjet has been extremely cordial, patient, and consistent in his arguments. He has shown respect for alternative points of view, and has handled the 'ganging up' on his arguments with aplomb.

I have never once been left with the impression he has deliberately misled anyone, and in fact, he has apologized when he has been shown to be in error.

Whether one argues the rules of tiddlywinks or the existence of UFO's, most of us spend time here to learn, to expose ourselves to new points of view, and perhaps, just perhaps, change the way we look at certain events as a result of the learned discussion here.

I think Rramjet should be held up as a fine example of respectful debate in the face of personal vilification, derision and scorn.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am here to engage and debate in a respectful manner, and show those with whom I wish to debate as much respect as I wish to receive in return.

Those who pride themselves in intimidation, personal attacks and otherwise disrespectful behaviour just marginalize their opinions to the point where they are skimmed over and ignored.
 
apathoid said:
Haven't read the ensuing responses to this yet, but I'm nominating this one for a Stundie! I knew something useful could come from this thread!

That's gold Jerry! Gold!

Hey, genius: it's the inconsistencies that make it unreliable.
Click to expand...

Actually you missed the context.

The context was a comparison BETWEEN two UFO reports. If one contends that both are totally unreliable, then comparing them to prove a point about there being inconsistencies between them is...well...frankly ridiculous. Unreliable is unreliable.

Perhaps you should not be so quick to leap to conclusions... that's just my opinion though.
 
Rramjet said:
Actually you missed the context.

The context was a comparison BETWEEN two UFO reports. If one contends that both are totally unreliable, then comparing them to prove a point about there being inconsistencies between them is...well...frankly ridiculous. Unreliable is unreliable.
Click to expand...


And why are we contending they are unreliable? Try to follow along, mmm'k?
 
SnidelyW said:
I agree.

Throughout this thread, and the thread regarding 'aliens', Rramjet has been extremely cordial, patient, and consistent in his arguments. He has shown respect for alternative points of view, and has handled the 'ganging up' on his arguments with aplomb.

I have never once been left with the impression he has deliberately misled anyone, and in fact, he has apologized when he has been shown to be in error.

Whether one argues the rules of tiddlywinks or the existence of UFO's, most of us spend time here to learn, to expose ourselves to new points of view, and perhaps, just perhaps, change the way we look at certain events as a result of the learned discussion here.

I think Rramjet should be held up as a fine example of respectful debate in the face of personal vilification, derision and scorn.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am here to engage and debate in a respectful manner, and show those with whom I wish to debate as much respect as I wish to receive in return.

Those who pride themselves in intimidation, personal attacks and otherwise disrespectful behaviour just marginalize their opinions to the point where they are skimmed over and ignored.
Click to expand...
Patricio Elicer and SnidelyW are right. Agree with him or not, Rramjet has, from what I've seen, not been mean to anyone and tries to document his point of view as thoroughly as he possibly can. People have accused him of being arrogant in the way in which he presents his point of view, but to me, he just sounds really excited all the time, sort of like he drinks lots of coffee before every post he makes. He has a fun and flamboyant quality to his writing; that's all. There seem to be a lot of antagonistic people on this board whose interest in skepticism appears to have more to do with them wanting to laugh at the unusual beliefs of others to feed their egos than with their having a genuine desire to understand the world around them.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
Come on!, Rramjet is also invited, he's been defending his points of view courageously as a lone voice, in the midst of a herd of disbelievers. I want to believe that he's been honest.
Click to expand...

SnidelyW said:
I agree. ….
Click to expand...

Thanks guys :o
I appreciate your saying so.

Oh..BabyHeadedMan got his post in just as I was posting mine... so my appreciation must extend to him as well (edit in Rr.)

I have been no angel certainly, but I have tried to be consistent and honest in my presentation of ideas.

I have also tried to answer as many of the posts and the questions raised in them as I can... and believe me, that has not always been an easy task!

Now,

I believe... if no new evidence is about to be presented... that the "blimp" hypothesis for Rogue River is now implausible.

I then contend in that case - "UFO" is the correct categorization and that this supports my first contention that UFOs exist.

Now ...and again correct me if I am wrong... there are quite a few of you who would not dispute that UFOs exist. Therefore:

I would like therefore to leave that case and perhaps address the call for PHYSICAL evidence.

Perhaps we can begin here?

Trans en Provence UFO (8 Jan 1981)
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1981.htm)
 
Last edited:
Add my voice to "yeah - he's cool in the face of adversity" - I don't agree with his position or some of the ways he applies logic, but he hasn't turned it into an insult party
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom